Given this scenario, we have to be thankful, yet again, to the courts. Last month, as many as three significant judicial pronouncements were made on the theme of criminalised politics, and more recently the Calcutta High Court pulled up the West Bengal government for its handling of the Nandigram violence.

The judiciary has issued its indictments both on the employment of criminal elements and in the conceding of political space to them, as well as for resorting to criminal methods to protect themselves. The fact that the names of more than one party find a place on the dossiers of the Amarmanis, Anand Mohans and Shahabuddins, speaks volumes of the willingness of parties to flirt with winnable ‘outlaws’. While the motivation of a young poet in getting romantically involved with a married politician twice her age with dubious antecedents may not as yet warrant societal introspection, organised use of state machinery and stout defence of planned violence against those seen as ‘the other’ bodes ill for the rule of law.

The late president, K. R. Narayanan, called for fighting against the criminalisation of politics in his address to the joint session of Parliament on August 15,1997 to commemorate the golden jubilee of Independence. He asked all parties to “undertake all such steps as will attain the objectives of ridding our polity of criminalisation or its influence...” A decade later, during the diamond jubilee celebrations of India’s independence, his words have lost meaning.

Sadly, a survey of 3,182 candidates cutting across party lines during 2004 Lok Sabha elections by the Association of Democratic Rights revealed that 518 (16.28 per cent) of them had criminal antecedents. A detailed and systematic study of the MPs of the 14th Lok Sabha revealed that over one-fourth of them had a criminal background and that half of them were from UP, Bihar, Jharkhand and MP. The majority belonged to regional parties. A study of legislative assemblies may reveal an even grimmer scenario.

Historically, the late sixties are generally perceived to be the point at which decline in political standards set in. Mahatma Gandhi had cautioned against corruption when elected governments were formed in the provinces in 1937. After independence, evidence of corruption in high places was discovered by 1950. The Gorwala Committee found “deviation from moral standards of ministers, legislators and administrators”, ranging from “corruption, patronage... and influence”. Various scandals — the jeep scandal involving V.K. Krishna Menon, the LIC-Mundhra deal, the H.G. Mudgal affair, and so on — pointed to the emergence of corruption at the highest level. The Santhanam Committee (1964) observed: “We wish we could confidently and without reservation assert that at the political level, Ministers, Legislators, party officials were free from this malady (corruption).” However, it was the case involving Punjab CM, Pratap Singh Kairon (1956-1964), that became the controversial benchmark. His assassination in February 1965, two months after he resigned following his indictment by the Das Commission, showed that politics and crime had become a reality.

The Supreme Court’s directive to the Election Commission of framing laws which require candidates seeking election to the Parliament or state legislatures to file affidavits on their criminal background if any; however, “the little man may think (it) over before making his choice of electing lawbreakers as law makers”, hasn’t made an impact yet. Not only do electoral and political processes continue to be marked by corruption and criminalisation, but in fact the instruments made available by these very processes are reportedly being used to suppress the truth. This means that we, the people, would need to be more vigilant and need to understand judicial verdicts and EC initiatives and follow up on them.

The writer is director, Centre for Public Affairs, Noida